PA Ballet Move..finally

Discussion in 'Fairmount / Spring Garden / Francisville' started by eldondre, Oct 10, 2011.

  1. eldondre

    eldondre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,004
    Likes Received:
    383
    I think this one was announced so long ago it was posted on phillyblog but it appears to be inching forward finally
    Major events in the city this week | Philadelphia Daily News | 10/10/2011
     
  2. AbortedWalrus

    AbortedWalrus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,415
    Likes Received:
    45
    It's going to be a new building? Are they taking one of the surface lots around there? If so I would imagine it's the one at Broad and Callowhill, on the west side. I'm curious though.
     
  3. Moonraker

    Moonraker Rocket Scientist

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Messages:
    2,027
    Likes Received:
    15
    The ballet's neighbors include Roman Catholic High and the Daily News.


    Their location is vague, do you think it's in 401 N broad?
     
  4. esp1977

    esp1977 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
  5. eldondre

    eldondre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,004
    Likes Received:
    383
  6. CityMaps

    CityMaps Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    864
    Likes Received:
    5
    Yes, and the brick one next to it will be the piece to be demolished. Too bad, but the result looks nice:

    [​IMG]

    (if that is the final design)
     
    #6 CityMaps, Oct 11, 2011
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2011
  7. eldondre

    eldondre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,004
    Likes Received:
    383
    well, I don't know that it actually looks better than the building that's there but having it all fixed up will be nice. I believe it used to house a social service agency of one kind or another.
     
  8. esp1977

    esp1977 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. ajs8905

    ajs8905 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think this is the final design. The rendering in the Inquirer article seems to be a watered down version of the one above. Apart from the restoration of the white building on the left, I find the entire design to be rather disappointing. I don't understand why they need to demolish a perfectly good building in order to replace it with a courtyard that is reminiscent of the President's House and a squatty one-story structure that will detract from the area's density and streetscape.
     
  10. CityMaps

    CityMaps Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    864
    Likes Received:
    5
    Oh, yeah I just saw the "new" rendering. Looks like they couldn't afford as much as they thought they could.

    The courtyard is probably so the dancers have an outdoor space to smoke...gotta keep that weight down!
     
  11. Titus

    Titus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    220
    Where is the new rendering?

    I don't think this one was bad in any way. Sure it's too bad to tear down the other building, but it's nothing to write home about. But I can imagine what inga would have said - something about the street line and how she hated pocket parks and courtyards...
     
  12. eldondre

    eldondre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,004
    Likes Received:
    383
    have to agree with asj, tearing it down for presidents house redux isn't exactly exciting. why not knock the one story building in back down?
    seeing other building renovated will be nice. what are they assuming will be built in the background?
     
  13. Insoluble

    Insoluble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,420
    Likes Received:
    79
    #13 Insoluble, Oct 11, 2011
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2011
  14. 3rd&Brown

    3rd&Brown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,775
    Likes Received:
    6
    You people are never happy. It's an improved use of the site and overall, the design looks pretty sharp. Plus, more growth for Callowhill/The Loft District, as this is on the east side of the street, and one less social services agency in the area. I'm sure Kamakiri will not be pleased.
     
  15. ajs8905

    ajs8905 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    The design looks sharp only because of cleverly placed lighting and shadows. Something tells me the final product will look nothing like the rendering. I think the PA ballet will be a fantastic addition to N. Broad; however, just because theres "one less social services agency in the area" doesn't mean we should celebrate mediocre architecture.

    Furthermore, its unfortunate that an old and architecturally appealing building will be replaced by an uninspired flat box. This seems to be happening a lot lately. While certain efforts have been made to foster innovative and sustainable design, Philadelphia stills lags far behind other cities in terms of historic preservation and adaptive reuse.

    * It looks like the brick building has already been demolished.
     
    #15 ajs8905, Oct 11, 2011
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2011
  16. eldondre

    eldondre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,004
    Likes Received:
    383
    actually it doesn't look that sharp and I'll remember that next time you complain about something. of course it's a positive, but that doesn't cover up the lackluster plan. did kamikiri post about the building? did he complain about the packard building?
     
  17. 3rd&Brown

    3rd&Brown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,775
    Likes Received:
    6
    ...says the gestapo with nearly 15,000 posts. god forbid anyone disagrees with you.

    you have a lot of opinions...with nearly 15,000 posts, it seems as though your role on this board has evolved into one in which you think it's appropriate to dissect every single minute detail a person mentions and point out your perceived flaw in their logic. i often wonder if you're employer has any idea that you spend your entire day at work arguing with anonymous people on a message board.

    please explain what is so significant about the building that is being replaced and what distinguishes it from philadelphia's inventory of existing, old buildings?

    i'd argue that philadelphia is late to the modern architecture game, so i for one, am happy to see some glass boxes pop up around here. it is 2011, afterall, and not 1890 or even 1980, when that faux colonial contextual **** was de rigueur, and the last period during which significant development (before now) took place on a sizeable scale.
     
  18. eldondre

    eldondre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,004
    Likes Received:
    383
    so that's your argument, a petty personal attack?
    since the driver is that the proposed design is lacking....I guess if the president's house is an architectural gem to you, so be it.
     
    #18 eldondre, Oct 12, 2011
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2011
  19. billy ross

    billy ross Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    Messages:
    11,819
    Likes Received:
    178
    Philadelphia does NOT lag behind other cities in terms of historic preservation and adaptive reuse. I can't think of a single city in the world which is our superior in this regard. Have you been to the Reading Terminal? Memorial Hall? City Hall? If you were to look at a photo of South Broad Street from 100 YEARS AGO almost nothing would have changed. European cities can't boast of that kind of stuff.

    We're famous for sealing up derelict structures for decades, only to bring them back to life when the time is ripe. The Naval Home, Eastern State Penitentiary, Germantown Town Hall, Boathouse Row, the Victory Building, the Royal Theater, the East Park Canoe Club, Wayne Junction Train Station, the North Philadelphia Train Station, the Navy Yard, the Metropolitan Opera, the Uptown Theater, the USS Olympia, the SS United States. The list goes on.
     
    #19 billy ross, Oct 12, 2011
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2011
  20. eldondre

    eldondre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,004
    Likes Received:
    383
    I noticed you mentioned south broad even though north broad is where the lion's share of notable structures had been located. just saying.
     
  21. billy ross

    billy ross Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    Messages:
    11,819
    Likes Received:
    178
    Noone is perfect - even in Philly we still demolish great buildings, and I think Philly is the American city least likely to do this. Maybe even of any city in the world. If you'll check my list, I don't expect all of the ones which are still moldering to make it. I'd like them all to; they've all made it this far. However, enough of them are so far gone that you've got to expect some of them to give up the ghost at some point. Clearly the ones which have already been repurposed are almost definitely going to make it, but there are quite a few which need fortune to smile upon them. I should have had the Divine Lorraine on that list. And the Buery Building. I noticed yesterday an interesting derelict art deco six storey building at 17th and Tioga. At least our culture tolerates these ghosts among us instead of wanting to wipe the slate clean as soon as they appear blighted. Once they're gone, they will never be replaced; Atlantic City is witness to that. How much demolition do you think that East Chestnut will see as part of its redevelopment? Precious little, I expect.
     
  22. ajs8905

    ajs8905 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would have to disagree...

    "And, as Sugrue notes, the alliance, as well as the city's Historical Commission, is woefully underfunded. The commission, which is charged with reviewing proposed new development in the city's 12 historic districts and beyond, and with protecting historic sites, survives on about $400,000 a year. Sugrue says that's a pittance compared with cities like Boston, New York, and Chicago: "It's amazing they get done what they get done given the few resources."

    - The Philadelphia Inquirer "Gray Area project aims to bring Philadelphia designers and preservationists together
    Gray Area project aims to bring Philadelphia designers and preservationists together - Philly.com
     
  23. eldondre

    eldondre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,004
    Likes Received:
    383
    Ballet's plan for N. Broad would raze building in Callowhill historic district | PlanPhilly: Planning Philadelphia's Future
     
  24. mixiboi

    mixiboi Philly Remixed

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    12,663
    Likes Received:
    320
    God, not another "save a building"...I know some parts of Philly would have benefited if they saved buildings(like East Spring Garden), but other parts wouldn't(Like the Business District)

     
  25. eldondre

    eldondre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,004
    Likes Received:
    383
    I think they are correct. they are senselessly demolishing a building with for a shoddy plan. most of north broad st would have been better off without all the demolition. I don't think you can compare demolishing an urban building to put in a silly little plaza with demolishing a building to put in a sky scraper (though the skyscraper district mostly was built on former railroad right of way, and where dilworth and center sq were built, the demolitions didn't actually improve upon what was there).
     
  26. AbortedWalrus

    AbortedWalrus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,415
    Likes Received:
    45
    I think in this case I'd rather have the plaza. There's nothing remarkable about the building at all, it's not useful to them, and it's an eyesore. If the building had some actual historic value, other than being in a "historic district" I might change my mind, but it doesn't. There's no sense keeping it around other than to please special interests.
     
  27. mixiboi

    mixiboi Philly Remixed

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    12,663
    Likes Received:
    320
    Its more then a plaza, it there whole studio! If they don't get rid of the building they don't have a space!


    And I'm sure that this historic preservation and architectural conservation firm would saved a couple of "historical" buildings where Liberty one and two are at.
     
  28. eldondre

    eldondre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,004
    Likes Received:
    383
    how is it an eyesore? I don't buy that at all, the building is far better for the street than some stupid plaza which adds nothing. I'm sure the building would look a little nicer if they'd done any amount of work to it over the last 4 years they've owned it. what is this the 1960's? please. poor design. I also don't see how a plaza is their whole studio.
     
  29. AbortedWalrus

    AbortedWalrus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,415
    Likes Received:
    45
    I wonder if in 2111 people will go up to my house and say "You see this building? It was built 100 years ago during the regentrification of francisville. It was built with then modern technology to make it energy efficient, which is a testament to the changes the world was going through as it ran out of fossil fuels, before the discovery of an infinite energy source." Then they'll all argue whether or not it should be demolished in favor of constructing the Philadelphia Urban Space Elevator. I think I'd laugh in the faces of the people who said no, if I were still around (plus I bet the property value would have gone way up).

    I bet people 100 years ago who built that building had absolutely no intentions of creating anything unique or historical, and since nothing historic took place there they'd probably laugh at you if you said it shouldn't be torn down in favor of a new development.

    It's completely unremarkable architecturally, it's disused, and shows signs of wear. That's basically the definition of an eyesore. Every day I drive by it I see the nicer building it's right next to and think, "boy, that white building would look nice if not for that brick one next to it." Besides which, only PART of it is going to be a plaza. They're also rebuilding part of the rear section, if you look at the renders. Is a plaza the best use for the space? Probably not. I'd rather something else were built than a plaza, but I don't think that's a reason to keep the building around if it's unused.
     
    #29 AbortedWalrus, Dec 8, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2011
  30. bruhinb

    bruhinb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    1

Share This Page